Hoooo boy. Forgive me if I don't make much sense. I don't know if two weeks of midterms and lab research is a proper excuse for my mental fuzziness

Darqcyde wrote:

Um, you didn't really make any sense, I don't see your point (I don't think you had one), and it just seems like you're going off on tangents, and I think overall you're missing the point. No one was talking about the merits of a work--it's irrelevant to the discussion. The entire discussion is already based upon the assumption that the work has merit.

...

Everyone who has issues with animal cruelty in food production, once they learn about how veal is produced, either decides to A) not eat veal, or B) compromise or change their values; once that veil of ignorance is removed, those become your only options. You can't have cruelty free beef and eat your veal too.

I don't think you understand. You necessarily have do divest someone's work from the character of the author. Supporting Clint Eastwood and Chris Brown doesn't mean you are okay with the things they say and do outside of their work. Believing the contrary is ad hominem. I enjoyed Gran Torino, and my friend once played a Chris Brown song without me realizing who it was and I thought it was okay (not my kind of thing, but my ears weren't bleeding). Does this make me some sort of republican woman-assaulter, or a supporter of those people? I don't think so. If, on the other hand, Chris Brown's music was about how great it was to punch Rihanna, I might have a differing opinion (and for the record, I don't even bother looking up his lyrics, because I don't really care what his music is like). Fans who support either of those men when they are saying/doing something outside the oeuvre of their work (making speeches, punching women) may be biased sheep, but they are, above all, not thinking for themselves.
Of course, the reply to this, as I have read, is that you are passively accepting it. Perhaps, but they've clearly decided that their pleasure is more important than anything else he does with his money. That's its own problem. I would not call those people enablers, but rather selfish.

In regards to eating veal and being against animal cruelty, you either don't and continue to be against it, or you do and you are not entirely against it. This isn't a very good example, because it necessarily deals in absolutes, and I would argue that most moral decisions do not, in fact, deal with that sort of thing. However, if you redefine your morals, you can always say "except here, where my personal pleasure/needs is more important," and I think most people say this. Even if their morals don't fall under something we would refer to as being postconventional, they are exercising some degree of autonomy. Does this detract from the strength of their beliefs? Probably, if they themselves are foolish enough to believe that they are concerned with concepts beyond their own needs and pleasure. But, as I said, it does not make them enablers, but rather, selfish.

Darqcyde wrote:

You're making the assumption that a single concession automatically means an abandonment of one's morals, that's always going to be subjective.

...unfortunately, I do not follow this reasoning within the context of eating veal.

Dogen wrote:

I think the "but he's so talented" thing is pretty morally weak (a la Michael Vick, Chris Brown), because it's an argument that says if you have the right talents in the right amounts then it's okay to let you get away with doing awful things, and that's a level of moral relativism I'm not prepared to accept.

What you call moral relativism, I call the cognitive biases natural to man in society.

fritterdonut wrote:

To be fair, in the example of a Holocaust apologist that donates to the KKK - that isn't just "make a person lose their job simply because you don't like something about them". That's making them lose their job because they are an awful human being by just about every civilized standard. If you're going to be a neo-nazi, you don't deserve shit.

Oh? If they are awful by every "civilized" standard, then why are they not in jail? I do not think what someone deserves has anything to do with either your ideological beliefs or theirs.

Vox Raucus wrote:

Don't be a idiot. Moral agency is not that simple, particularly when the product or activity you are supporting is not directly related to the questionable outcome. There is a world of difference between giving money to the KKK to further a neo-nazi agenda, and buying a movie ticket to a Clint Eastwood movie.

Is there? Are you talking about performed acts, intention, or connotations here? Because we cannot truly know intention beyond what is declared (thus leaving one's private thoughts completely untouched), connotation is silly and amounts to little more than aesthetics, and as far as performed acts go, Clint Eastwood has actually probably made more people racist (or at least believe in an ideology that is racist, sexist, and generally not so great these days). _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

You necessarily have do divest someone's work from the character of the author. Supporting Clint Eastwood and Chris Brown doesn't mean you are okay with the things they say and do outside of their work. Believing the contrary is ad hominem. I enjoyed Gran Torino, and my friend once played a Chris Brown song without me realizing who it was and I thought it was okay (not my kind of thing, but my ears weren't bleeding). Does this make me some sort of republican woman-assaulter, or a supporter of those people? I don't think so.

This is verging on nonsensical. First, an ad hominem (as it is used in the English language, as opposed to what it means denotatively in Latin) is when you irrationally attempt to overcome an opponent by attacking their character or reputation rather than challenging their argument, not to use the actions of a person as a basis for whether you want to give them money or other support. The former is a logical fallacy, the latter is a rational means of choosing how to spend one's money (a means with which you may not agree, but which is based on sound reasoning, at least as it's been defined so far). Second, choosing not to support someone because you find them objectionable in no way suggests you become more like that person by watching their movies or listening to their music. That's, to use a Squidbunnyism, clown shoes insane. What it does suggest is that by giving them money, increasing their record stats, etc. you are helping to enable them to avoid any serious repercussions from their behavior, where some people might object to a person being able to walk away from a brutal beating of a woman essentially unscathed.

Quote:

Dogen wrote:

I think the "but he's so talented" thing is pretty morally weak (a la Michael Vick, Chris Brown), because it's an argument that says if you have the right talents in the right amounts then it's okay to let you get away with doing awful things, and that's a level of moral relativism I'm not prepared to accept.

What you call moral relativism, I call the cognitive biases natural to man in society.

Do I seem unfamiliar with cognitive biases to you (you might look back two post before yours)? You're going to have to do better than that.

Quote:

Oh? If they are awful by every "civilized" standard, then why are they not in jail? I do not think what someone deserves has anything to do with either your ideological beliefs or theirs.

One, because being awful is not necessarily illegal (awful people have rights, too). Two, what is the basis for what someone deserves (a moral judgement) if not one's beliefs? If we don't accept that there is an objective morality, which I don't, then all judgements are based on someone's beliefs. You don't even need to make something illegal to make these judgements. I don't deserve to be fired from my job, because it's my belief that I do it well. My boss may believe differently._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Oh? If they are awful by every "civilized" standard, then why are they not in jail? I do not think what someone deserves has anything to do with either your ideological beliefs or theirs.

A lot of neo-nazis would be in jail if they lived in Germany or Eastern-bloc countries, where there are specifically laws against Holocaust denial and Holocaust apologism, that can and will lead to jail time. Likewise, in most other 'civilized' countries, hate speech is against the law._________________Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while, I think I see my brother coming, riding many a mile.